Lower
the age for required withdrawals
By
Gerald E. Scorse, Progressive Charlestown guest columnist
RMD is an alternate acronym for MRD |
On
the bright side, Furman said there was “increasing agreement that we can get
additional revenue while improving efficiency through broad-based reductions in
tax expenditures for those who derive outsized benefits…under the current
system.”
Putting
it more simply, those who reap the richest rewards should be first in line when
the tax reformer cometh. It’s a fairness argument, and Furman claimed it had
won the minds of former Council chairs Martin Feldstein, Glenn Hubbard and Greg
Mankiw.
Congress
should follow their lead and start with the fairest, kindest tax reform of all:
a stepped-up timetable for minimum required distributions (MRDs) from
tax-deferred retirement accounts. It would bring billions into the Treasury by
directly raising certain incomes; could reform be any kinder?
Recall
that Furman used the phrase “outsized benefits.” Tax-deferred retirement
accounts offer the same breaks to everybody: pre-tax contributions, untaxed
investment growth.
High-income
workers take more advantage, but that’s to be expected. The real outsizing
flows from minimum distributions.
To
learn how it happens, let’s look at the role of MRDs and the rules that govern
them.
Withdrawals
from tax-deferred accounts effectively pay the country back for more than 40
years of compound tax breaks. The payback is the income taxes that come due
when savers dip into their nest eggs.
There
are two options for withdrawals. One is for people who need the money, the
other for those who don’t.
The
first group gets penalty-free access as early as age 59 1/2. Each withdrawal
triggers a tax payback, and smaller balances limit potential gains going
forward.
Those
who don’t need the money can keep it invested (and likely growing) for another
11 years. Minimum required distributions don’t begin until age 70 1/2, and when
they do the accent falls heavily on minimum.
The
formula that applies to most accounts calls for a starting distribution of
under 3.7 percent. The percentage rises yearly, ever so slowly. Twenty-five years
later, at age 95, the MRD is just a shade over 11.6 percent.
MRDs
in fact double as MRTs: minimum required taxes. Ironically, the rules turn the
biggest beneficiaries of tax-deferred accounts into outsized laggards at paying
America back.
The starkest example is so-called stretch IRAs. They can
string out distributions for generations, even into the next century. President
Obama has long been trying to end them; a proposal in his 2016 budget would
require most second inheritors to close out their accounts within five years.
This change alone would raise an estimated $5.5 billion
over the next decade.
Far more important, though, is basic reform: MRDs should
begin at age 65. The qualifying year for Medicare is a fitting year to begin
repaying the Treasury for those decades of tax breaks (and, in the bargain,
helping to keep Medicare solvent). If the current withdrawal percentages made
the same five-year shift, the required distribution would reach 11.6 percent at
age 90 instead of 95.
In addition to fairness, there’s powerful fiscal reason
to create an accelerated MRD schedule for future retirees. Unlimited billions
would stream into the Treasury.
About 10,000 Americans turn 65 each day, a
demographic tide that’s set to roll in until 2030. This year also marks the
beginning of required distributions for the first of the country’s 78 million
baby boomers. (And no, higher minimums won’t exhaust their savings. Only
withdrawals well beyond the minimums could do that.)
Larger distributions would
also put more money into people’s hands; if the money gets spent, it would help
stimulate the economy and grow jobs.
Summing
up, minimum distributions should start sooner and grow a touch faster. When
Congress finally takes up tax reform, it should begin with the fairest and the
kindest.
Gerald E. Scorse
helped pass the bill requiring basis reporting for capital gains. He writes on
taxes.
©
2016 Gerald E. Scorse